Again the pig strikes, right on time. You concentrate on the Indian article primarily because it is the easiest to discredit, while ignoring the fact that the city off of Cuba has been identified through sonar by credible oceanographers who by their own acclaim state that the city is by no means a natural phenomenon and if their technology was better they would be able to explore such depths of the ocean. This story also has been featured in national geographic back first when the city was discovered.

Curiously there was no link to this mysterious find. Apparently the force that led to the city sinking into the Atlantic was thorough enough to also erase the link from the topic you started.

Quote:

Secondly the city off the Japanese coastline is credible as it was presented in national geographic and other various sources,

Well National Geographic isn't a science journal but I'll allow that it's a better source than Wackjob Religious Claptrap Monthly or anything from Ken Ham or Kent Hovind. So OK let's take your word for it: The city off the Japanese coastline is credible as it was presented in National Geographic.

Quote:

however you mistakenly claim it was 2000 years old. If it truly was 2000 years old then there would have been references to it in Japanese history, and surely someone wouldve noted somewhere that a city had sunk. That city however is thousands of years older than what you claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by National Geographic

Submerged stone structures lying just below the waters off Yonaguni Jima are actually the ruins of a Japanese Atlantisan ancient city sunk by an earthquake about 2,000 years ago.

I really try and stress to people the importance of READING the links they post before relying on them to support an extraordinary position!

Quote:

What you do is pick and choose what you can easily get your fangs on to discredit, such as the Vedic scientists, like their discovery of a city is any less credible than a Canadian atheist scientist doing the same. Would you finding Noahs Ark be any more credible than me finding it.

The first thing to get out of the way is that the Vedic "scientists" making this claim is a cause to be sceptical about the claim and pay extra attention to the actual evidence being offered before drawing a conclusion. Just as if a well known tax-and-spend economist claimed to have evidence supporting tax-and-spend as the best philosophy for national economic policy you'd want to scrutinize their findings and methodology more than you would if the same claim was made by a traditional tax-cutter.

Secondly about Noah's Ark, you think that if you found a big boat at the top of a mountain (and before you start, no... nobody has ever found such an artifact) then that would be game-set-match against atheists and solid proof of your god. Well actually, no. The boat at the top of a mountain is the tiniest part of the evidence you would need if you wanted to present a credible Diluvian flood theory.

First you'd need to show credibly where the water came from and where it went. And you'd need to show evidence that the planet was flooded. Then you would need a credible explanation of the distribution of flora and fauna worldwide especially accounting for the genetic similarity of geographically close clades.

If you could provide evidence that the entire planet had at one time in the last 10,000 years been covered with water and that this water drained away then every animal on earth emerged from a single location and was distributed in the way we find it today from a single event then proving that it was a magic boat that conveyed them would be the least of your worries.

No, you're confused here. Firstly the science in question here is archaeology which is a soft science. The discovery of a large city 5000 years earlier than the next earliest large city would be an extraordinary discovery, but not something that "any other scientific model previously allowed". It's plausible but it would be an extraordinary find, which is why the correct attitude would be one of scepticism. Hence further investigation is a must before you start making claims.

It's worthy of note that the existence of underwater cities is not that unusual. What is unusual is the timelines being attributed to this one.

Archaeology is a soft science? I would disagree.. it fulfills a vital role in mankind's self identity. That and anthropology. It doesn't break down the DNA helix or otherwise dazzle with quantum figures and equations, but it is vital all the same to how we identify ourselves in this world.

Underwater cities are fairly unusual, regardless of the timeline being attributed. The very aspect of it being underwater necessitates a given set of time has occured anyway.

If all previous conceptions were that mankind's next large scale city was 5000 years newer than the currently found one, then it does indeed surpass the parameters any other scientific model previously allowed.

Nothing wrong with due process and confirmation, but when "further study" becomes more of a mantra than a process, and become a tool for more traditional heads in science to "fillibuster" against paradigm shifting knowledge until it becomes forgotten or obfuscated.. then we have a problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SQ

You haven't qualified your statements. You're claiming that there are "underwater cities and pyramids" but there is nothing in the articles in the thread I linked to that even mention cities. "Science" calling these "pyramids" "natural formations" is another thing that can only be obtained by misreading the articles. If you read them carefully you would note that the artifacts dredged up by "Vedic" archaeologists were the things that were possibly natural formations, nothing to do with pyramids.

You're making claims based on the claims of another poster as if they are indisputable, but the evidence provided by the person making the claims doesn't actually back them up!

No there was a guy from a university in Boston.. Professor I assume. That went out to the site off of Japan and scuba dived out there several times, and after much ado and too much aplomb, declared it natural formations. It was in the video. I read, and watched, you see..

As for Vedic science.. I believe it is limiting to blanketly paint them all as hacks and dangerous fringe. Its also interesting to note that only some of them were in Vedic science, not all. So in effect, you are making an assertion based upon a few of them being cited as being that particular discipline. Also, you are asserting that Vedic Science has no redeeming qualities whatsoever about it. I still believe it is flirting with closemindedness to just label a finding as founded by such and such a group, and proceeding to summarily dismiss it as a result.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SQ

If I knew that utterly frenetic mental contortions one must go through in order to consider a worldwide flood to be anything other than a children's story?

The world was once frozen over very deep towards the equatorial line. Ice ages. Where there is ice age, why can there not be a "melt" age? Where there is one, there would be another, by my reckoning. And if man is indeed older than previous models allowed for....

Quote:

Originally Posted by SQ

No, pseudoscience. Science is based upon scepticism. Against the reworking of theories according to repeated observation of phenomena in order to better understand the universe. Pseudoscience is based upon starting at a conclusion and obfuscating any contradictory data in order to promote this position. Vedic "science" has all the hallmarks of a pseudoscience: It has no observational basis. It records the hits and ignores the misses. It relies on anecdote instead of data. It insists that it is correct and most damnigly, it postulates a conspiracy of "orthodox" science to silence its claims.

If the science is sound and the methodology is rigidly adhered to then new ideas get accepted into mainstream scientific thinking. That's precisely what science is. Anybody who claims that their truth is being suppressed by mainstream science should immediately be causing alarms to go off - what they are telling you is horse-balls.

Lol. So they basically try to prove right, as opposed to rightly prove. Conceptually.. I see nothing wrong with starting at the conclusion and working backwards.. It just approaches the equation from a different angle. Mathematicians do that all the time. Is there room for abuse there.. certainly... but there is room for abuse in your slow plodding tried but true "mainstream" process as well. One pitfall would be way too much hesitance and 'scepticism' for anyone's good to encourage any sort of galvanizing action within the environs of science itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SQ

You're religious and this to me is what is at the heart of all religious thinking. It has been since humans first saw that big yellow ball in the sky and thought "what is that thing?".

Religion has always and will always be a limit on human knowledge. It's always the thing that says "We know enough" and "there are some things we just aren't meant to know". Hey if humans were meant to fly god would have given us wings. If we were meant to cross the oceans he'd have given us gills. If your family is meant to survive this horrible plague then God in His Wisdom will allow it. If we were meant to know why the sun went round then he'd have given us the knowledge now STOP ASKING QUESTIONS AND GET ON YOUR KNEES!

Alternatively, Science limits knowledge because it does not accept any new information unless it passes exhaustive tests and scrutiny. With such a system, the gap between what is known and eternity is literally infinite. So my major problem isn't using what science has managed to glean about the world and universe around us, Im somewhat of a scholar of it myself.. My major problem is the limitation set by individuals such as yourself on what people are allowed to believe in, because your flashlight (science) doesn't uncover the entire cave (universe).. That's where my view deviates from yours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SQ

Science is the means we use to understand the world. Religion is an explanation given to us by people who should know better.

But our understanding of everything, considering, is only about .005 %, if that, of the overall sum of potential knowledge available. Your stance is to ignore 99.995% of all possibilities because they have not yet been intrusively and categorically defined and parsed and parceled into soulless pockets of information. Its a philosophy of life I clash with. Your philosophy seems to imply that if a doctor tells you you will never walk again, you won't. Mine says **** the doctor, I'm gonna do what I do.